Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexposition

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was keep. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sexposition

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Neologism. Fails WP:NEO. Possible candidate for Wiktionary. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Urban Dictionary is thattaway. ---------> Carrite (talk) 17:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nj.com, Bangor Daily News, NYTimes blog, Salon, National Post. WP:BEFORE fail, term clearly meets GNG. Jclemens (talk) 17:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You may notice a certain similarity in those pieces, all of which relate back to the same source of this neologism. This is a recently coined word of little general applicability. It is not in wide use and likely never will be. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure, but multiple RS'es commenting on the same source of an event does not impair notability in any way. The fact that multiple high-quality RS'es have taken note of the term in reference to a current, critically acclaimed TV series supports, rather than impeaches, its inclusion-worthiness. Jclemens (talk) 20:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm... which one of the above exactly do you consider "high-quality RS'es"?VolunteerMarek 21:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as creator. The article is not about the word (in which case it would be a neologistic dictionary entry unsuited for Wikipedia). It is about the narrative technique, which is older than the word. As such, it is a subarticle of Exposition (literary technique) and a companion article to the other entries in Category:Narrative techniques. I first drafted it as a section in the main Exposition article (which, if necessary, it could again become), but that article is already reasonably long, and this sub-topic has both sufficient coverage for notability (as shown above) and expansion potential to stand alone: The Guardian article cites a number of earlier works in which this technique has been used, which means that there is room for sourced analysis and examples that pre-date and go beyond the use in Game of Thrones that caused somebody to coin a word for the pre-existing technique. Sandstein 19:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Exposition delivered in sexual situations doesn't seem worthy of its own section, let alone its own article. Without the neologism to suggest that it is somehow different from, say, exposition delivered while walking, it is simply exposition. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, no; according to the sources, sexposition is functionally different from exposition delivered while walking in that it also serves to distract and/or titillate the part of the audience that is not interested in the exposition, which allows narrators to get away with infodumps that would otherwise be too boring. The sources also discuss the other effects of this technique, such as its implied insult to the audience's intelligence or maturity: "We think you are too stupid or juvenile to pay attention, so here are some boobs to look at." Sandstein 06:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge. I find the arguments of both User:Sandstein and User:Jclemens to be compelling reasons for inclusion in this encyclopedia as a sourcable and improvable subarticle of Exposition (literary technique). At the very least, we might discuss its content being merged to Exposition (literary technique)#Sexposition to improve THAT article, but an outright deletion of this searchable topic does not serve the project nor its readers. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Carrite, and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. See [1]. Draco^E 08:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC) Changed to Merge, per my reply to Schmidt. Draco^E 03:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not see that there being an unsourced one-sentence definition in Wicktionary as a reason to delete our well-sourced article on the topic. Thank you for sharing, but the existance of one does not automatically require deletion or retention of the other. No doubt that in our efforts to build an encyclopedia and expand a reader's understanding of various topics being discussed, there may be other terms with brief definitions there, that have similar in-depth expansion and coverage here. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Schmidt, I thought long and hard before voting; and this short article is well written. However, it only has two sources and looks like a case of WP:RECENT. I will change my vote to Merge, as in use to expand the existing paragraph about this term in Exposition (literary technique), based on the quality of the writing. Can you live with that? Draco^E 03:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Jclemens and Sandstein. Could even be naughty and say keep per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz , as there are are multiple sources that dont just mention the term, but which are entirely about this important concept: (.e.g. nj.com and Guardian article ) FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The term is certainly not notable; the concept might be, but I don't see any long-term evidence for it. Powers ^T 23:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jclemens & Sandstein, looks like it meets WP:NEO. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sandstein & Schmidt, sourcable and improvable subarticle of Exposition (literary technique). Cavarrone (talk) 20:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jclemens , Sandstein and Cavarrone-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 08:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see that the term is not able to get enough notability, very low in fact but not zero. The concept is notable though. →TSU ^tp* 16:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, new, not yet notable neologism. Even the refs use it in scare quotes. Hairhorn (talk) 14:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Exposition (literary technique)- Sexposition is notable enough to be a section in the Exposition article, but I don't think it needs its own article. WoundedWolfgirl (talk) 18:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.